These days, most of those folks have moved on to Python.
And the flip side of that is many of the people still coding in VB6 write excellent code. Most samples being posted today have full sanity checks and error handling, are very easy to follow, support Unicode, have documentation and commenting... just what do you think makes 'good code' that VB6 programmers aren't generally doing these days? Sure there's still lots of people very new to it and writing terrible code (lots of new users coming from non-english speaking countries actually)... but I have a hard time believing good code is as rare as you're making it out to be these days.
So my daughter might be taking nude selfies of herself on her phone, which Google flags as child porn. But its not a pedo, its a selfie. So the engineers should carefully review those selfies, decide the phone belongs to a child, and the pictures are likely her own.
Except it is pedo, she's guilty of manufacturing CP, distributing CP if it's been sent to her BF, and exploitation of a minor (herself).. and the authorities should handle it since criminal charges will teach her not to ruin her life, by ruining her life. At least that's what some police officers and prosecutors think, and judges don't seem to mind either. It's not theoretical either, kids have actually been hit with those charges, most commonly for sharing, but for possessing too-- that's right, a prosecutor in NC actually had the gall to charge a 17 year old and his gf with exploitation of a minor for possessing naked pictures of themselves (distinct from the various other charges for sending and having their partners pics), in just one example of this obscene abuse of the law. If you think that's crazy, the insanity didn't even stop there: the boy was charged as an adult!
This country has completely lost its shit over teenage sexuality since it's been combined with technology. Probably because childhood has been extended so far that people don't recognize the difference between 17 and 7, so are equally freaked out by sex with the two ages.
The consequences was the arrest of over 100 pedophiles.
And according to the official rationale, the re-victimization of thousands of abused children.
They did not run the website.
They absolutely did. They seized control and moved the site to their own servers, where they continued full operation. Their servers managed by their IT staff served abuse pics, accepted new members, accepted and distributed new pictures... everything.
They basically created a honey pot to collect information on any visitors.
They had to serve existing content and allow new content to do this? Never been an issue before with just not serving the real deal.
Law enforcement agencies engage in undercover actions all the time. One example is when undercover agents buy a few kilos of cocaine to go after the dealer. Purchasing the drugs does not mean they are dealing drugs. Buys of this nature go right into the evidence lockers and are eventually destroyed when no longer needed. anymore
But that's not what happened here. Imagine the officers bought those few kilos and sold it to thousands of men, women, and children, then just turned around and arrested 1% of them, long after they had consumed the content and in all likelihood sold it along to more people.
I imagine in this case that the entire website will be saved as evidence. Depending on where the site was hosted they will go after any server logs related to this site.
Which is what they should have done exclusively instead of becoming the administrators of a large scale child exploitation site.
Every thing they did in this investigation so far was perfectly legal.
According to a single low level judge. It's far from clear and far from resolved. There's material omissions in the warrant application alone that could invalidate the whole thing, like not mentioning they planned to take up serving images for 2 weeks (and it's pretty damn close to one of those 'general warrants' our founders hated so much; broad discretion to hack into and search an unspecified number of unknown people many of which were even outside US jurisdiction). *If* this practice stands, it's only because the clearly illegal nature was ignored for the benefit of catching pedophiles.
And you do realize you are actually support the suspected pedophiles? You are going after the FBI instead of the pedophiles. You are awarding the pedophiles the benefit of a doubt while giving none what so ever to the law enforcement agencies in this case.
And you're saying it's perfectly legal and ok for the FBI to victimize children in pursuit of people who viewed images. You've misstated their actions in clear bias towards being an authoritarian assclown who thinks any means are justified if the government says so, damn the implications, damn the victims, damn the victims families, damn due process, damn the law, damn the constitution, damn the doctrine of 'innocent until proven guilty', and damn the children whose records of horrific abuse were distributed to even more people by their very own government. Piss off. And nice job hiding behind AC.
The problem here is... just viewing the picture is creating a 'demand' for such material, and therefore a supply must be created, which exploits minors. I'm not really on board with the drawings of such things being forbidden as well, that seems like overkill to me, and drawings may supply the consumers of such materials that aren't exploitative of minors. It's an ugly nasty situation for sure.
You're saying people have sex with children just to get some high fives online? It's illogical on its face. They might be more likely to record it if they're already doing it, but that's about it. Commercial transactions are an entirely different issue. Also, some people enjoy watching children beaten and brutally murdered. But that's legal (as long as the child isn't naked) to possess pictures/videos of. People get off on adults being raped too, but videos of that are legal. If viewing encourages the act, why aren't things like that illegal? Or maybe we should arrest anyone who has adult porn they can't find signed affidavits of affirmative consent for? The laws banning CP were created when most of it was purchased. When that was no longer the case they made up other rationales with little evidence and zero discussion of whether such a thin link was worth a massive infringement on freedom (destroying someones life because of data they possess) because why on earth would LE ever want to give up the massive power and carte blanche to ignore half the constitution that came with it. If it was really about protecting victims of crimes or that viewing encouraged crimes, a whole host of other things would be illegal.
You mentioned cartoons filling demand, but that doesn't go far enough: some studies have even indicated legal possession of already-created freely acquired CP (i.e. no realistic contribution to market) can actually satisfy a pedo so they don't go out and actually molest a kid, at a better success rate than completely abstaining from viewing such images. However disgusting CP is, if it prevents pedos from becoming child molesters at a higher rate than it encourages them to, the net result is less children hurt-- and that should be the goal, and right now it's not: we're far more interested in the low-hanging fruit of viewers.
Lend money to a bad debtor and he will hate you.